I want to thank David Moody for his extensive post, and detailed reply to my
arguments on the relationship between Pound and the concept of democracy.  I
want to give it the detailed response that it deserves.

>En Lin Wei's problem seems to be that he cannot conceive that an emperor,
>or
>king, or any kind of absolute ruler, might rule well.  He believes in
>elective democracy, and only in elective democracy.

The second statement is true.  I believe in elective democracy, and only in
elective democracy, as the best system.

The first statement is not correct.  I can conceive of situations in which
emperors and kings might rule well.  But that is beside the point I am
trying to make.  I believe that when ANY PERSON no matter well intentioned,
overthrows a democratic or republican system, disaster ensues.  The "good
tyrant" is a fiction, because even if he is perceived as doing well by his
subjects, the good he achieves is only short term; because he is depriving
his people of the opportunity for self-improvement, self-government, and
ensuring that an entire generation grows up without the skills necessary
cultural, political, and social development.  The good tyrant, or the
benevolent dictator, is like the parent who keeps his child in his room on a
continuous basis, giving the food, safety, and protection, but denying the
child one of the basic goods:  freedom.

>Any alternative, it
>seems, must be anti-democratic and tyrannical.

What alternatives are you imagining?  Of course, by definition, any system
which is not an elective democracy is anti-democratical.  Any system which
allows the will of an individual to prevail  over the will of the vast
majority of the people, by definition, tyrannical.   Some slaveowners are
good people, that does not mean we should tolerate the institution of
slavery.  Likewise some emperors are good people; but that does not mean we
should celebrate the institution of absolute monarchy.

>He cannot accept that under
>emperors, kings and even dictators, the burning question has not always
>been
>how to overthrow a tyrant, but rather how to ensure that the ruler shall
>rule well--that is for the good of the people.

If the issue is to ensure that the ruler shall rule well, what system does
this better than one which makes the ruler accountable to the ruled, and to
the elected representatives of the people, and to a judiciary?  A
constitutional democracy, to a certain extent, does this.  An imperial
system does not.


>Democracies have the same
>problem with their elected representatives.

Yes.  Indeed they do.  But with elected representatives in a democracy there
are institutional safeguards, and moral pressures.  In an imperial system,
there are only moral pressures, which may be insufficient.   In an elective
democracy with sufficient guarantees of free speech, the citizens can
criticize their leaders; in an imperial (or fascist system) critics can be
silenced through threats, jailed, or even put to death.


>Pound's concern in the Cantos
>is not to favour one form of government over another, but to affirm the
>idea
>that whatever the form of government it should serve the people as a whole.

Can you provide any evidence to sustain this assertion?  Pound stated his
belief in Mussolini, and in fascism time and time again.  When he was asked,
at the outbreak of World War 2, and the US declaration of war against the
Axis Powers, to return to the US, he refused to go, saying, "I BELIEVE IN
FASCISM".  I do not see how it can be argued he was indifferent to the form
of government, unless by this you mean he had no preference whatsover for
any type of institution, but prefered the rule of ONE MAN, in whom was
vested supreme power.  (A virtuous man of course, but the "virtues" of the
men he favored and praised ---Hitler, Mussolini, and Genghis Khan, among
others---are subject to question).  I assume you have not read the Radio
Rome speeches all the way through, or you could not say that Pound was
indifferent to the form of government (and mean by that, that he would just
as soon have a democracy as a fascist "government"; he clearly favored the
latter)

>So in the Chinese history cantos, given that China had an imperial system,
>he follows the discriminations of the Confucian historians between
>constructive emperors and disastrous ones.

I am curious about what exactly you think Confucianism is?   And what do you
think the Chinese imperial system is?  And why, for goodness' sake, do you
think a 20th century intellectual should find lessons in Chinese imperial
history which could benefit Western framers of thought, ideology, and
policy?  If Pound was the least bit open to democratic institutions and
ideals, then he would have entertained the possibility that the Taoists
might have had something valuable to contribute to history.  Instead, Pound
consistently celebrates numerous instances when the Confucians wipe out,
oppress, and destroy their Taoist oponents.  Allow me to say something in a
later post about your interpretation of the passage from the Chou King [Shou
King, or ---in pinyin, the Shu Jing).

And also, in a later post, a word about John Adams.

A final question:  Do those who defend Pound on this political question
believe or not believe in the maxim:

POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY ?

A reasoned answer to that query, in relation to Pound's belief system, would
go a long way toward sorting this issue out.

Regards,

Wei




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com